Cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling we have when we know we should invest in solar panels but the 46â€³ wide screen TV wins out; we know we should catch the bus but we take the car anyway. It’s that sense of discord that arises when emotion and reason don’t get along. And unfortunately, it’s alive and well, sabotaging the climate change debate.

Yup, the stone age brains of Warmists who refuse to give up their own big carbon footprint lives. Heck, just look at this picture of Al Gore with 4 big computer models, tons of paper culled from trees, a leather chair, sitting in a nice climate controlled McMansion. Look at all the Warmists who take massive fossil fueled flights to the ends of the earth to exotic vacation spots to whine about CO2 from fossil fuels. Just ask any Warmist what type of vehicle they drive.

Unfortunately our emotional brain is encouraging us to pursue perceived self-interest even if that means trashing the planet. This leaves our rational brain to try to justify our actions, even while the walls come tumbling down and the temperatures keep rising.

True, Warmists do rationalize their own hypocritical behavior. But, there’s been a temperature rise pause for 17 years now, and a miniscule .28F rise in global temperatures since 1990. Not exactly doom worthy. Anyhow, here we go

We need to design a new kind of democracy where many government decisions are made cooperatively, with multi-party representation and the input of experts. Such think tanks must have strategies in place to promote critical self-analysis and to “frame” policy to reflect the long-term reality. The cost of climate change mitigation can then be shown to be minute compared to the cost of inaction.

Of course, this would mean only allowing certain people to have the Franchise, because in a Democracy people with different points of view are allowed to vote. The “experts” would be the ones with power, no one else would be allowed. By it’s very definition, democracy will never truly be about big decisions being made cooperatively, because of those different opinions. What she’s talking about is fascism, an authoritarian government, much like Saddam Hussein’s, Iran’s, or Hugo Chavez’s version of democracy.

Education must produce adults who can think critically and understand what’s at stake and why our judgement is flawed. To counter self-interest, the government should use incentives and disincentives to guide public behaviour. We need to encourage altruism by instituting reciprocal, incremental improvements, and by showing leadership.

By “think critically” she means brainwashed to listen to the “experts” and be good little drones, while empowering the government, run by these “experts”, to further reduce liberty to things that are only acceptable to these “experts”. Sounds very much like the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, eh?